[Services-wg] ARIN Services WG and CKN-23 Proposal Next Steps (was: Re: CKN23-ARIN thoughts)

[John Curran]

David -

I’ll note that the language in the third option (Option C) is more neutral and
reflective of simply having reviewed the proposal and aided its refinement,
whereas the Option A text states that the Services WG is “supportive” of
the proposal (and thus would potentially have the Services WG members
being asked why they support the proposed change.)

Again, I am fine with any of the outcomes (timing-wise, I’d like to send the
consultation out by mid-February if possible.)

/John


On 27 Jan 2017, at 8:13 AM, David Huberman <daveid at panix.com<mailto:daveid at panix.com>> wrote:

I kind of felt like that in our discussions, the role of the WG members was to simply advise; to give our thoughtful and considered opinions to the staff and Board.  I don't feel like we need to formally recommend anything.  We are here for you - the staff and Board - as a technical sounding board.  We ain't nobody. :)

Just my opinion.   (A) sounds fine to me.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:34 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

On 12 Sep 2016, at 10:05 AM, David R Huberman <daveid at panix.com<mailto:daveid at panix.com>> wrote:

WG and staff,

I have re-reviewed the CKN23 document, and in light of our call, here are my final thoughts:

1) I agree with Matt that hijackers are more normally going to use Whois to verify what they already know: that a block is abandoned and ripe for their misuse.

2) If, as reported by staff, ARIN is receiving 5-10 calls a week on this, that doesn't seem like a "problem" to me. Rather, it seems like CKN23-ARIN is working as intended.  It's causing registrants to contact ARIN and, unwillingly or not, learn how to update their registration information. I see this as highly valuable to the community -- more up-to-date contact information is good.  If the registrant who contacts ARIN to complain does not ultimately update their information, then I can only assume it either wasn't important enough of a problem to them to actually do anything about it, or perhaps they really shouldnt be listed :)

3) Formally, I support Option #1, the do nothing option.  But I can support Option #3, reinstating old resource tech POCs back to the resource, but locking to prevent them from making rDNS changes without validation.

Members of the ARIN Services Working Group -

Welcome to 2017, including formal resumption of our ARIN Services WG efforts!

Based on the discussion within the Services WG (and some discussion in halls at
the October ARIN meeting) on the topic of CKN-23 cleanup,  I am proposing that
the ARIN proceed with Option 3 (i.e. the restoration of the admin and tech resource
points-of-contact and locking the record.)   (See attached email for a refresher if
desired.)

This change would provide legacy resource holders with entries which most closely
resemble that which was originally registered (rather than having only the oblique
“abuse POC” entry), yet does not significantly alter the steps necessary to make
changes to the number resource (i.e. parties must have access to the original email
or perform recovery to make substantial changes to their number resources.)

I am now preparing a community consultation proposing this change (including the
supporting material that was reviewed by the Services WG), and will include one of
the following statements or equivalent -

   A) “The ARIN Services Working Group reviewed this proposed change and is supportive”

   B) “The ARIN Services Working Group reviewed this proposed change and does not support
         proceeding as suggested.”

   C) “I would like to thank the ARIN Services WG for their helpful review of the proposed
         change and resulting improvements to the supporting materials, noting at this time
         that the Services WG did not take formal position in support or opposition to the
         proposal.”

From the earlier discussion on the list, one could argue for any of the above outcomes;
I’d ask that the Services WG converge on one of the three outcomes listed above (and
I would be happy to coordinate with the Chair to schedule a teleconference if needed for
this purpose.)

Thank you!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Subject: [Services-wg] ARIN Services WG - CKN23 materials for your consideration
Date: 14 June 2016 at 1:58:09 AM PDT
To: "services-wg at arin.net<mailto:services-wg at arin.net>" <services-wg at arin.net<mailto:services-wg at arin.net>>

ARIN Services WG (SWG) -

  Please find attached the “CKN23" project document and an overview slide deck
  of same, for your consideration.   Leslie Nobile produced these and is available
  to brief the Services WG on the issue and potential options for moving forward.

  It would be my desire the Services WG consider the matter and provide an initial
  recommendation on how to proceed.  I would inform the ARIN community of this
  direction by putting the matter out for community consultation along with the SWG’s
  recommendation.

  Please review the materials at your convenience, and we’ll arrange a teleconference
  in the near future to review jointly.

Thank you!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


<CKN23-ARIN.pdf>

<CKN23 doc.final with graphics.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Services-wg mailing list
Services-wg at arin.net<mailto:Services-wg at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

_______________________________________________
Services-wg mailing list
Services-wg at arin.net<mailto:Services-wg at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/services-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/services-wg/attachments/20170127/aae1fee0/attachment.html>